If all officers are trained and some trainees are not officers, is there a contradiction with 'All officers are trained'?

Prepare for the FBI Special Agent Selection System Phase I Test with comprehensive quizzes. Tackle flashcards and multiple-choice questions, complete with hints and explanations. Ace your exam!

Multiple Choice

If all officers are trained and some trainees are not officers, is there a contradiction with 'All officers are trained'?

Think about what each statement says in terms of groups. All officers are trained means every member of the officer group is inside the trained group. Some trainees are not officers means there exists at least one person who is a trainee and not part of the officer group. These two ideas don’t cancel each other out. It’s perfectly possible for all officers to be trained while there are trainees who aren’t officers (and those trainees could be trained or untrained themselves). For example, you could have some officers who are trained, and separately, a group of trainees that includes people who are not officers. There’s no conflict between the universal statement about officers and the existence of non-officer trainees. So there isn’t a contradiction.

Think about what each statement says in terms of groups. All officers are trained means every member of the officer group is inside the trained group. Some trainees are not officers means there exists at least one person who is a trainee and not part of the officer group.

These two ideas don’t cancel each other out. It’s perfectly possible for all officers to be trained while there are trainees who aren’t officers (and those trainees could be trained or untrained themselves). For example, you could have some officers who are trained, and separately, a group of trainees that includes people who are not officers. There’s no conflict between the universal statement about officers and the existence of non-officer trainees.

So there isn’t a contradiction.

More practice questions